If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It is hard to know where to begin listing the reasons why "liberalism" and "hypocrisy" have become synonymous. But the latest flap over some warmed over charges of "sexual harassment" against Herman Cain is a sterling example. Outrageous though this synthetic controversy may be, it hardly comes as a surprise. Conservatives have been warning for weeks that the left would most certainly engage in just such behavior once Cain's star began to rise. Yet it is always amazing how shamelessly liberals can ignore the mountains of evidence proving their insincerity while they lecture the nation with almost comical passion.

Nor do they seem to be the least bit aware of how thoroughly they caricature their ceaseless self-glorification. This latest barrage against Cain is nearly satirical, and absolutely reeks with all of the stereotypical bleatings from their leftist strategy book. On the heels of the unsubstantiated and ambiguous claims of Cain's supposedly crude innuendos, it is a sure bet that he will next be accused of having stolen hubcaps from his subordinates' cars in Godfathers' parking lots.

Admittedly, this current chorus of liberal fury exhibits an amazing ability to switch on a moment's notice from alarm and righteous indignation to total indifference, and back to moral outrage, as varying events have unfolded and either presented a public relations liability or an opportunity to make political hay. Particularly in light of the recent history of real sex scandals perpetrated by prominent liberals, most of which involved substantiated incidents of harassment, assault, and abuse, liberals have been forced into some thoroughly shameless gymnastics in hopes of navigating the gauntlet needed to maintain the moral "high ground." But of course they are up to the task.

Consider the drastic lane changes that were required in the 1990s, after the 1992 election of philanderer in chief Bill Clinton. After the stormy 1991 Supreme Court appointment of Clarence Thomas, which was punctuated by spurious charges against him of sexual harassment, liberals believed they owned the issue. Despite their failure to thwart his confirmation, they declared a moral victory, and insisted that votes to confirm Thomas constituted acceptance of abusive behavior towards women. For the next few years, they remained on that pious perch, loudly crowing of their superior advocacy of the fairer sex.

However, it was not long before the advent of the Clinton Presidency thoroughly discredited such claims and, more significantly, proved the entire liberal/Democrat establishment to be entirely phony in its professed concern for women in general. From the repugnant treatment of Paula Jones to a physical assault on Kathleen Willey (followed by thuggish attempts to silence her), to the very likely rape of Juanita Broderick to the exploitation of Monica Lewinsky, Clinton revealed an absolute contempt for women, other than as objects of his own amusement and self-gratification.

Even more significant however was the manner in which the entire liberal political cabal not only refused to condemn his actions, but breached every boundary of credibility and decency in order to defend him. New and contorted definitions of "sexual harassment" were concocted by liberal politicians and pundits which somehow always preserved a "safe zone" around Clinton. In other words, the left was not (and never has been) really interested in the proper treatment of women, but only sought to caterwaul about such things on a selective basis when it could gain political ground as a result. So now that the tables have seemingly turned and a Republican is in the crosshairs, the phony empathy and concern spews incessantly from every liberal mouthpiece. As such, the entire affair epitomizes liberal hypocrisy on parade.

But from an even more encompassing perspective, it is ever more apparent that glaring liberal inconsistencies and indefensible contradictions are hardly confined to this one topic. In fact, it is all but impossible to find any issue of supposed concern to the left that is not filled with hype, manipulation, intellectual dishonesty, and total fraud. Even a brief discussion of the myths and realities of the liberal agenda inarguably proves the point.

Liberals loudly claim to be champions of "education," yet a comprehensive assessment of their concept of proactive educational support boils down to two major pursuits, money and control. Specifically, liberal "education" necessitates that students be consigned into enormously expensive government schools, in which they are ideologically indoctrinated while their overseers feed ravenously at the public trough. Thus can the next generation, particularly in the nation's urban areas, be safely kept on the "plantation."

Similarly, the whole liberal advocacy of abortion and "gay rights" has never been about elevating human dignity, but about collapsing the nation's cultural and moral foundation so that it can be remade in the image of Marx and Alinsky.

Abortion has done more to demean women and relegate them to the role of sexual "play toys" than any other societal change in the last century. Nor should the symbiosis between public school "sex education" and the nation's abortion industry ever be ignored. Clearly, the breakdown of morality needed to advance the counterculture is similarly advantageous to maximizing the business interests of the abortion mills, which exercise an inordinate influence on the teaching of "sexuality." Likewise, the entire same-sex "marriage" movement has as its ultimate purpose the destruction of traditional marriage, which would erode and diminish its historical role as a staunch mooring of civilization.

Equally fraudulent are occasional liberal calls for "civility" and "ending the rancor" in public discourse. As selectively as these demands are invoked, and as quickly and completely as they are abandoned whenever the liberal agenda can be advanced by the spewing of some bile and venom, the evidence is incontrovertible that the left has no real desire to maintain a tone of respect in any debate that it might better dominate through other means.

Anyone who ever naively contended that the true guardians of "mother earth" reside on the political left should take a brief gander at any of the "occupy" mobs across the nation. The proliferation of filth and squalor in their surroundings is atrocious, and inexplicable except as a physical reflection of the true ideological mindset of the participants. In stark contrast, those "terrorists" from the Tea Party invariably left their gathering places in pristine cleanliness.

The same observations can be made on every subject dear to liberals, from alleged recent worries of "voter disenfranchisement" (Over which they travailed in Florida 2000, but turned a blind eye in Philadelphia in 2008), to the plight of illegal aliens whose status they clearly want to maintain as a permanent underclass. The ugly state of current day American liberalism is neither intellectually honest nor morally consistent. It is sad that its adherents were ever able to garner any response other than a guffaw when parading their biases and distortions before the public. Saddest of all is that the "me too" wing of the GOP was so quick to give liberals credibility for sincerity, burnishing their image and ultimately validating their deceit by attempting to play along with them.

The good news is that Obama and his "Occupy Wall Street" minions, by virtue of their consuming arrogance and contempt for real America, have tipped their hand. The ruse is over.